기획논단(企劃論壇) : 중국 관행 연구와 중국 연구의 재구성 -시론적(試論的) 접근(接近)-

전인갑 ( In Gap Jeon ),장정아 ( Jung A Chang ) 한국중국근현대사학회(구 중국근현대사학회) 2010 중국현대사연구 Vol.48 No.-

This paper aims to search for the possibility of construction of a new paradigm for humanistic China studies in Korea through the study of Chinese social and economic practices. For this purpose, a new understanding is required toward the tradition of the Chinese empire that has been deliberately depreciated by the discourse of modernity through Chinese modern and contemporary history. With the new understanding of the legacy of the Chinese empire, we could investigate how modern and contemporary Chinese have been searching for the construction of a powerful country through seeking the reconstruction of tradition and modernity. In this paper, we focus on the study of Chinese social and economic practices as a method for this new understanding. Practices comprehend not only historicity but also present meaning and rationality. For the path of the development with Chinese characteristics, termed as Chinese model, will be searched for with its own historic and cultural assets, the study of Chinese practices that combines positivistic research and theoretical study could provide a historical prospect of the future of China. Any analysis or general theory without considering the complexity and plurality of Chinese society burdened with the weight of history could be misleading. The objective in-depth analysis of Chinese society requires a close combination of thorough historical and positivistic research and theoretical study based on it. Through the combination of research and theoretical study on the Chinese practices proposed by this paper, we could assess the effectiveness of this methodology.

중국 관행 연구와 중국 연구의 재구성 : 試論的 接近

田寅甲(Jeon In-gap),張禎娥(Chang Jung-a) 중국근현대사학회 2010 중국근현대사연구 Vol.48 No.-

This paper aims to search for the possibility of construction of a new paradigm for humanistic China studies in Korea through the study of Chinese social and economic practices. For this purpose, a new understanding is required toward the tradition of the Chinese empire that has been deliberately depreciated by the discourse of modernity through Chinese modern and contemporary history. With the new understanding of the legacy of the Chinese empire, we could investigate how modern and contemporary Chinese have been searching for the construction of a powerful country through seeking the reconstruction of tradition and modernity. In this paper, we focus on the study of Chinese social and economic practices as a method for this new understanding. Practices comprehend not only historicity but also present meaning and rationality. For the path of the development with Chinese characteristics, termed as Chinese model, will be searched for with its own historic and cultural assets, the study of Chinese practices that combines positivistic research and theoretical study could provide a historical prospect of the future of China. Any analysis or general theory without considering the complexity and plurality of Chinese society burdened with the weight of history could be misleading. The objective in-depth analysis of Chinese society requires a close combination of thorough historical and positivistic research and theoretical study based on it. Through the combination of research and theoretical study on the Chinese practices proposed by this paper, we could assess the effectiveness of this methodology.

비대칭적 국제질서: 천하질서, 그 변용과 현대적 재구성(Ⅰ)

전인갑(Jeon In Gap) 서강대학교 인문과학연구소 2018 서강인문논총 Vol.0 No.51

천하질서는 보편주의와 패권주의가 결합한 질서이다. 천하질서는 지리적 개념이기도 하고, 정치적 개념, 문화적 개념이기도 하다. 이것은 중국과의 거리를 기준으로 한 지리적 질서였고, 동시에 중국의 부유함과 패권을 기반으로 한 정치적 질서이기도 했으며, 무엇보다 이 질서는 보편주의와 보편가치를 공유하는 문명의 질서, 도덕의 질서이기도 했다. 하지만 이 질서는 본질적으로 중국 중심의 패권질서였다. 최근 중국의 연구자들은 천하주의와 천하질서 그리고 조공체제에 큰 관심을 보인다. 그러한 관심의 궁극적인 지향점은 천하체계를 21세기의 새로운 세계질서의 원리로 복원하는 것이다. 이들은 천하질서가 주변국의 안정과 발전을 보장하는 질서였다고 주장한다. 어떤 젊은 국제정치학자는 다음과 같은 사실을 강조한다. 중국은 세계질서를 새롭게 만드는데 선도적인 역할을 해야 한다. 중국이 세계질서의 성공적인 건설자가 되기 위해서는 중국이 전통적인 천하질서 속에서 계승할만한 요소를 발굴해야 하며, 그러한 요소를 세계 여러 나라에 전파해야 한다. 중국의 학자들은 천하질서가 공존의 번영을 가져다 준 평화로운 왕도의 질서였다는 사실을 강조한다. 또한 그들은 천하질서가 패권적이고 억압적인 질서가 아님을 강조한다. 나아가 그들은 이 질서가 중국 중심의 세계질서가 아니라 다중심의 세계질서이며, 관용과 포용의 질서라는 점을 재차 강조하고 있다. 이들의 주장을 자세히 분석해 보면 이들의 논리는 문화적 보편주의에 기반을 두고 있다. 이 점은 천하주의도 마찬가지이다. 본고에서 천하질서에 대한 재검토를 시도하는 것은 이에 대한 이해가 현대 중국의 행동 패턴을 분석하고 전망하는데 필수적인 요소이기 때문이다. The Tianxia order is a combination of universalism and hegemonism. The Tianxia order is both a geographical concept and a political one and a cultural one. It was a geographical order based on its distance to China, at the same time a political order based on its affluence and hegemony of China, and above all, a moral order shared with the universal values. But this order was essentially China"s hegemonic order. Chinese researchers recently showed great interest in Tianxia order and the tribute system. The ultimate purpose of such attention is to restore the Tianxia order to the principle of a new world order in the 21st century. They argue that the Tianxia order was to ensure the stability and development of neighboring countries. Some young scholar of international politics in China emphasize the following facts. China should play a leading role in creating a new world order. If China is to be a successful builder of world order, it must discover the elements it can inherit in the traditional world order and disseminate them to countries around the world. Chinese scholars stress that Tianxia order was the order of benevolent government(王道) which brought prosperity to peaceful coexistence. They also stress that Tianxia order is not a hegemonic and repressive order. Furthermore, they reiterate the fact that it is not a China-centered world order, but a multilateralism of tolerance and inclusion. Their reasoning is based on cultural universality as it is in traditional China. In this article, the analysis of Tianxia order is for the following reasons. It is necessary to understand the traditional way of recognizing the world order in order to analyze and predict the behavior patterns of modern Chinese.

한·중 인문교류의 현황과 전망

魏幸復(Hang-bok Wee) 중국어문논역학회 2017 中國語文論譯叢刊 Vol.0 No.41

한국과 중국은 지리적으로 특수한 관계에 있으며, 오랜 기간 활발한 문화교류를 유지하여 왔다. 냉전시기에 들어선 이후 양국의 교류가 잠시 중단되었지만, 1992년 修交 이후로는 모든 방면에 있어서의 교류가 비약적으로 발전하여 왔다. 그러나 장애요소가 없지도 않으니, 역사, 영토, 문화유산에 관한 갈등, 북한 핵, 미국과 중국의 경쟁과 갈등 등등, 새로운 문제들이 계속 대두하고 있어서, 교류와 접촉의 확대에 따라 갈등 또한 증가하는 양상을 보이고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 인문교류는 정치적, 경제적, 군사적 갈등을 완화하거나 해소하는 방편이 될 수 있다. 인간이 집단을 이루고 살면서 창조해 온 ‘人文’이 ‘존중’과 ‘화합’의 가치를 추구하기 때문이기도 하지만, 한국과 중국이 문화적으로 높은 친연성을 갖고 있기 때문이다. 학술적, 문화적 교류가 문제에 대한 이성적이고 본질적 인식을 가능하게 할 것이며, 비이성적이고 피상적 인식이 야기할 수 있는 불필요한 오해와 갈등을 방지하거나 해소할 수 있을 것이기 때문이다. 한국과 중국의 인문교류를 발전시키기 위해서는 상호의 문화적 정체성을 인정하고 공존의 관계를 만들어가는 것이 중요하다. 중국 정부가 求同存異의 원리를 내세우고 있지만, ‘儒敎文化圈’ 혹은 ‘漢字文化圈’이라는 단순한 범주화는 문화제국주의에 대한 우려를 야기할 수도 있다. 평등하고 상호적인 인문교류가 전제되어야만 ‘문화공동체’의 모색도 가능해질 것이며, 문화산업 분야에서의 共贏 가능해질 것이다. 최근의 경험은 인문교류가 다른 분야에서 발생한 갈등요소에 의해 간섭받지 않을 수 있어야 한다는 점을 일깨웠다. 그렇게 해야만 인문교류의 본래적 의의를 살릴 수 있을 것이다. 양국의 인문교류를 장기적이고 안정적으로 발전시켜 갈 수 있는 제도와 기구를 설립하고, 교류의 중장기 로드맵을 수립해야 할 것이다. Korea and China have a special geographical relationship and have been active in cultural exchanges for a long time. After entering the Cold War period, exchanges between the two countries have been suspended for a while, but since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, exchanges in all aspects have been developed dramatically. However, as a result of expanding exchanges, there comes new obstacles such as conflicts on history, territory, cultural heritage, the North Korean nuclear issue, competition and conflict between the United States and China, and so on, Respectively. In this period of time, humanistic exchange can be a way to alleviate political, economic, and military conflicts. It is not only because ‘humanities’ that human beings have created while living in a collective society pursues the values of ‘respect’ and ‘harmony’, but also because Korea and China have relatively high cultural affinity. Academic and cultural exchanges will enable us to recognize the fundamental problems, and will prevent or even eliminate unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts that may result from irrational and superficial perceptions. In order to develop humanistic exchanges, it is important to acknowledge the cultural identities of each other and to establish a coexistent society between Korea and China. Chinese government persists the principle of ‘acknowledging the differences between pursuing the same point’, but this simple categorization of ‘Confucian Cultural Circle’ or ‘Chinese Character Culture Circle’ may cause concerns for cultural imperialism. Equal and mutual exchanges of humanities should be premised on achieving the original purpose of ‘strengthening human bonds’ and win-win in the field of cultural industries will be possible. Recent experiences have reminded us that humanistic exchange should not be interfered by conflicts of other fields. Only then will the ‘humanistic exchange’ can regain its original meaning. We should establish systems and institutions that can develop the humanistic exchanges between two countries, and also build plans for long term roadmap of further relationships.